MovieChat Forums > States of Grace (2014) Discussion > Portrayal of ordinances in Dutcher's mov...

Portrayal of ordinances in Dutcher's movies


I am a convert. I joined the Church in a ward that, to me, seemed to exemplify living by the spirit of the law. Later, I moved to another state, lived in several different communities, and have found that the letter of the law is more important out here. Here, I can get scorned for not marching in line like an automaton robot. I go to a concert and I get hassled. I watch an edited version of the Terminator and I get hassled. Meanwhile, I have a sister-in-law who is a sexist and refuses to read the Old Testament because she thinks Abraham was a mysogyinist. In fact, the majority of LDS people I come into contact with have not read the Bible all the way through, and some haven't even read Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price, and some people even hassle me if I choose to read from one of these standard works instead of the Book of Mormon.

This is the sort of mindset from which I usually hear complaints about Richard Dutcher's movies having portrayals of the ordinances in them. It usually comes from people who live their lives with their noses either in somebody else's business or in some sort of instruction manual that teaches them to pontificate, usurp Divine authority to cast judgment, and persecute, and all from a basis of gross imperfection, albeit unrecognized by themselves. These are the kind of people who drive away converts and investigators, and they have tested my faith.

On the other hand, the missionaries who taught me the Gospel, who carried with them a message from Heavenly Father and succeeded in helping me to recognize and feel the Spirit, drank caffeinated soft drinks when we had lunch together.

What is my point? Perhaps we would all do well to find something better to do with our time than to look down on others for not doing every little thing the same way we would in their position. That is arrogance. The Savior personified meekness, and expects it of us. He also said that the greatest commandments were to love God, and to love God's children. I hardly think that looking down on others and thinking that you're better than them because they don't share your opinions is the way to follow these two commandments.

A spiritual life, in which communion with God is achieved, is lived by hearkening to the still small voice, not by following a self written program and functioning like a machine. While it may seem unorthodox for Richard Dutcher to portray the Sacrament in his movies, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

After all, failure to adhere to orthodoxy was one of the chief complaints about Joseph Smith Jr. Did it make Tom Sharp or Lilburn Boggs right? Did it justify their actions?

reply

Dear formasual,

Thanks for opening up to share your experiences. I have never had a problem with Dutcher's ordinance portrayals. Perhaps I have become desensitized, but I don't think so. I find his portrayals always edifying and never demeaning.

You made some great points about those that come across as self-righteous, those members of the Church who spend so much time pointing out the motes that they can't focus on their own beams.

I believe when we make it to the Celestial Kingdom or the other side and find out who some of the people that have made it to inherit such a place, we may be surprised because the majority of us have not developed the Christ-like attribute of being able to look on the heart. It is so difficult to live in mortality and to resist the temptation to make judgments based on outward appearance and actions.

Some of my favorite lines from the hymns is from "Lord, I Would Follow Thee." It is in the opening lines of its second verse.

"Who am I to judge another when I walk imperfectly? In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can't see..."--Susan Evans McCloud

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."--Albert Einstein

reply

I never realized that Dutcher's portray of ordinances was so objected to by some people until more than a year after I saw his first two movies. I thought both of those films were terrific.

It's interesting that the people Jesus picked on the most during his ministry were the most religious people, the ones who were following all the rules.

I hope you become a general authority someday.

reply

Good points. I have always felt that Dutcher handled the showing of ordinances in his films in an extremely reverent manner. He shows them as serious, important events, not frivolous activities. Those who object are far too concerned with, as you said, the letter of the law. There's certainly something to be said for following "the rules", but there's something far more to be said for having the Spirit to tell you what you should do.

Like Elder Lozano, in States of Grace, said, sometimes you have to break the rules to keep the commandments.

reply

Just a bit of infor about Dutcher's portrayal of ordinances:

I've posted this in another thread on this board; however, this is probably a better thread to mention it. I have the DVD version of God's Army and after watching the movie through once, I went back and watched it with the Director's Commentary function activated. Dutcher clearly addressed his portrayal of ordinances. He also described how they were filmed. He did not have his actors go completely through any ordinance at one shoot. Rather, he stopped them partway through, filmed another section of the scene later, and finally edited them together.

Another thing to remember is that the Church also presents portions of ordinances in some of their own films.

reply

Great points....and I've stated them all along.

I just wonder what people's hang ups are about this.

-Todd
www.toddlbauerle.com

reply

Amen!

(Oops--I better be careful saying "Amen" because that word is included in the wording of several ordinances, and it could be misconstrued as me portraying part of an ordinance.)

:)

Content ratings: Indie films: LDS viewers in mind!
http://ldsreviews4movies.tripod.com

reply

The premise of this discussion seems to be "Anyone that disapproves of Dutcher's portraying sacred ordinances is an uptight, snooty, self-righteous hypocrite." That is quite a generalization. Can it be possible for one to be a good, active, practicing LDS who does in fact disapprove of the sacred ordinances being portrayed in a cinematic forum? Yes. And I disapprove of it. Other than that, I generally enjoy his stories.

If a respected and revered leader of the LDS church (Pres. Hinckley) disapproved of the scenes depicting sacred ordinances, does that make him a hypocrite? Does that make him unfeeling and a follower of the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law?

Why do I not like the portraying of the ordinances? They are sacred. They are to be done in the right time and place. The right time is as the spirit directs. The right places are in dedicated, holy, and set-apart environments. A movie set does not qualify. Artistic intent does not qualify. A home or hospital does qualify if it is directed by the spirit. Even with the best intentions, the unauthorized use of Holy Priesthood ordinances is, well, unauthorized. The first Pharoah of Egypt, according to LDS scripture, imitated the order of the priesthood, but he was never authorized to do so. He was a good man, but broke the law by going and acting as though he was a priest without being properly authorized.

It is fallacy to paint everyone who feels this way about Dutcher's films as hypocritical and out of touch. Anecdotal experiences such as what the original author of this thread tells are not enough to condemn those who object to certain scenes of Dutcher's movies. Just because what he has purported to see in members of the LDS church, their not living up to his perception of an ideal, does not confirm that what he claims is true. Are some LDS going to disappoint? Hell yes! But that is in no way justification to condemn an entire community or state.

"And my father dwelt in a tent."

reply

So is it okay that many of the church produced films portray ordinances? Those are done on movie sets just like Dutcher's films.

If people don't like seeing ordinances "faked" for the purpose of film, I respect that opinion. But, I think that the same standard should apply to everyone. If the LDS Church officials are okay with respectively portraying ordinances in film, then it should be okay for other filmmakers as long as it is done with respect.

reply

I don't think you have to be comfortable with this representation. I don't think that it's important to be comfortable with anything in this film. Part of the point of this film is to challenge comfort-zones, including the one you're describing for yourself.

However, Bro. Dutcher hasn't broken any covenants nor commandments with what he's done. He's made an effort to make sure what he's done is respectful to those ordinances. The Church has no apparent problem with representing baptisms and confirmations in film -- I've seen quite a number of ordinances carried out in Church-produced films.

So feel free to be uncomfortable with this. I think you got particularly uncomfortable with someone describing you in a way that you didn't like. I can relate -- I've been there. I think you might be a uptight, snooty, self-righteous hypocrite, but, more likely, you're someone who's concerned that these ordinances be treated with respect. I have no problem with that, so long as you recall that you don't have the authority to enforce your understanding on anyone but yourself and your family, and that those who do have the authority to speak to this matter have not apparently required that these scenes be removed (if Dutcher was subject to formal Church discipline, it would be known). When those with the keys to those ordinances have no problem with them being represented in film, who are you and I to say that they are wrong?

reply

Silence from church leaders on the matter of portraying scacred ordinances in film does not equate explicit sanction of the practice. LDS Church leaders do not butt into the private lives and businesses of members. Even if they wanted to, the highest authorities in the church could not "require that these scenes be removed." That would lead down a road to disaster--the Taliban comes to mind. If we believe sacred ordinances are in fact sacred, we all should have a desire to treat them with deference. This means finding some OTHER way to convey their portrayal in an artistic, filmed medium. Even if church films portrayed ordinances to the extent that Dutcher's films have--and I do not believe they have--are you forgetting that they are CHURCH productions, bearing the name of the church? 'Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'. They are official church missionary tools. It is another matter completely when someone like Dutcher, not on the Lord's errand, uses the ordinances for a strictly worldly pursuit.

It's all about respect for the priesthood. It really is that simple.

reply